HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. Sanjay Chopara S/o Daulat Ram, R/o Near Ram Prakash Talkij, Balchand Pada, Bundi Raj

: Mr. Praveen Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ayush Singh, Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 31/07/2025 Order

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the award dated 28.06.2008 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, Rajasthan (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (hereinafter referred to as "the learned MACT/Tribunal"), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.158/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, awarding Rs.2,79,000/- with interest at 6% per annum as compensation.

2. At the outset of the hearing, counsels for both parties informed the Court that United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (non- [2025:RJ-JP:29124] (2 of 6) [CMA-712/2009] claimant/respondent No. 2) had previously filed four appeals challenging the same award. These appeals were: • S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3911/2008: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashish Thakor & Anr. (MACT Case No. 159/2004) • S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4052/2008: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahendra Singh Jadawat & Ors. (MACT Case No. 7/2004) • S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4053/2008: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Anr. (MACT Case No. 31/2004) • S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4054/2008: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vishvajit Thakor & Ors. (MACT Case No. 158/2004)

3. All four appeals were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 02.05.2011. Consequently, the learned Tribunal's findings regarding the Insurance Company have attained finality, and therefore, factual findings are not reproduced/reiterated here.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

20.10.2003, the deceased-Shailang Thakor, along with three other persons, was returning from an agricultural farm, near Gumanpura Kanta in a Maruti Van (registration No.RJ-20C-4294) to Bundi being driven by non-claimant/respondent No.1-Sanjay Chopra in a rash and negligent manner, the Van collided with a truck (registration No.RJ-19-1G-4333), which resulted in the death of the deceased-Shailang Thakor.

5. Thereafter, the claimants/appellants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. It was pleaded that the accident took [2025:RJ-JP:29124] (3 of 6) [CMA-712/2009] place due to the rashness and negligence of non-claimant/ respondent No.1-Sanjay Chopara, the driver of the Maruti Van. It was further pleaded that the deceased was 24 years old, well qualified with B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees, and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a Sales Executive at Fair Deal Technology Ltd. in New Delhi.

6. The non-claimant/respondent No.1 filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made therein. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

7. The non-claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company, filed a reply to the claim petition, denying the averments and submitting that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck (registration No.RJ-19-1G-4333), and submitted that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Maruti Van did not have a valid and effective license and that the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle but was being used for carrying passengers. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the eight (8) issues.

9. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants/appellants examined Smt. Laxman Kanwar (AW-1), Maniraj Singh (AW-2), Smt. Shalini Thakor (AW-3) and Ashish Thakor (AW-4) produced documentary evidence (Ex-1 to Ex-130).

10. In rebuttal, the non-claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company, examined Prabhu Lal (NAW-1).

12. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both [2025:RJ-JP:29124] (4 of 6) [CMA-712/2009] parties, the learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants/appellants. And accordingly, while deciding Issue Nos. 3 and 8 relating to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,79,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of realization.

13. Being aggrieved of which, the claimant/appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

14. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant/ appellant is that the learned Tribunal has erred by awarding an inadequate amount of compensation. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in applying the multiplier, as the age of the parents of the deceased was taken into consideration instead of the age of the deceased. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred by not considering the future prospects of the deceased, and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is very meager. Therefore, the impugned award requires modification in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order may kindly be modified and the compensation amount may be enhanced.

15. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimants/ respondents has supported the impugned award and vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants, and submitted that the impugned award was [2025:RJ-JP:29124] (5 of 6) [CMA-712/2009] passed by the learned Tribunal after due consideration of facts and the relevant law, and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed.

16. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

17. From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that: (i) the learned Tribunal committed an error in applying the multiplier, as the age of the parents of the deceased was taken into consideration instead of the age of the deceased. In this regard, the position of law is well-settled that in motor accident compensation cases, the age of the deceased is ought to be considered while applying the correct multiplier; (ii) the future prospects of the deceased Shailang Thakor, were not taken into consideration; and (iii) and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is also on the lesser side.

18. Therefore, if the facts of the case are examined in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pranay Sethi(supra), this Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants/appellants under the impugned order is required to be enhanced in terms of the table herein below: Loss of Income (+) Deduction Personal Expenses 1/2 (Rs.6,48,000/-x1/2) (-) Rs.3,000/-x12x18 =Rs.6,48,000/- Rs.3,24,000/- Future Prospects (40%) (+) Rs.1,29,600/- Loss of Estate (+) Funeral Expenses (+) Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:29124] (6 of 6) [CMA-712/2009] Loss of Love & Affection (Rs.40,000/-x2) (+) Total Rs.80,000/- Rs.5,63,600/- Already Awarded Amount (-) Rs.2,79,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.2,84,600/-

19. Therefore, the present appeal is partly allowed, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal under Issues Nos. 3 and 8 are modified, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is also accordingly modified, and the compensation is enhanced to Rs. Rs.5,63,600/- from the original amount of Rs.2,79,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.2,84,600/- before the learned concerned Tribunal within 60 days from the date of passing of this order. The claimants/appellants are also entitled to receive interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.2,84,600/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until the realization of the said amount. On deposition of the enhanced amount, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount to the claimants on a pro-rata basis in terms of the award.

20. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is modified and enhanced as per the terms indicated above.

21. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Seema/22 (MANEESH SHARMA),J